---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

A debate that has not been mentioned before—in fact, there were two—preceded the 1990 Act. It was the debate on the Warnock report on 23 November 1984. I have looked up the proceedings, and at that time I said:"““Can we, in our so-called civilised society, condone, whether under licence or not, in any circumstances the development of human-animal hybrids””?—[Official Report, 23 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 574.]" In other words, I take the same position now as I did then. We have undoubtedly been made aware of the slippery slope to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has just referred, and of the practices that have developed over the intervening period, which, in my opinion, have undermined our civilised behaviour. I was led to take part in that debate by my religious belief. I make no bones about it. That is the reason why many people who hold such convictions should object to such procedures. In August 1984, before the Warnock report was produced, I proposed to the Life conference in Leamington Spa the idea of a petition with 2 million signatures. I said that I believed that there would be a need for legislation, and that the best way to ensure that we got our case across was not merely to have a petition with 500,000, 1 million or 1.5 million signatures, but one with 2 million signatures. That petition was delivered to this House. There is a contrast between the atmosphere in the House tonight, or even in 1990, and the atmosphere in 1985 when the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, promoted at my suggestion by the right hon. Enoch Powell and filibustered in Committee by the efforts of the then Member for Bolton, Mr. Peter Thurnham, who was supplied with information by a young doctor —Robert Winston. That contrast takes us back to some of the fundamental questions that we have to address today. These are not new issues; they are central to the question of whether we should have new therapeutic methods, with committees largely packed by those of a certain opinion, which tends to lead them to their predetermined conclusions. There is great feeling outside that something is not quite right about what is being done in our name. Like other Members who have spoken today, I have vigorously opposed the genetic regulations that have been brought in over time. I have always been concerned about how the committees involved—whether the BMA ethics committee or Committees of this or the other House—take decisions, because they tend to be dominated by people of a certain persuasion. It does not surprise me at all that the slippery slope has continued to grow. I had discussions with Edwards and Steptoe during the course of proceedings in earlier days and became increasingly concerned about some of the research being conducted in the name of so-called science. There is no doubt that we should all be concerned about those who suffer from degenerative diseases and the other conditions that have been mentioned, but we have to face a choice. Our choice should be based on deep and instinctive repugnance towards the proposition that a thing, however defined, whose sole purpose or object is that it may be a human life, should be subjected to experiment and destroyed for the acquisition of knowledge. We should maintain that fundamental tenet. I would go further. The great Thomas Huxley said:"““If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?””" As I said earlier with regard to Professor Einstein, science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. We have a responsibility, on behalf of our constituents, not to evaluate these matters entirely and exclusively by reference to scientific endeavour or to the therapeutic results that may be produced. There are alternative methods, as we have discussed, and which I raised in an earlier intervention. We have heard much of the fact that scientific results cannot be produced immediately: research is needed, and the process takes time. The sort of research conducted by Professor Shinya Yamanaka, which I mentioned earlier, largely adopted by Professor Sir Ian Wilmut, is overtaking the human hybrid cloning research—the embryonic research—to which so much of the debate has been devoted. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, say that we would consider different systems; I hope that I am not misquoting him. If and when we are satisfied that the most beneficial research is the sort in Professor Shinya Yamanaka's programme, I hope that we will have the opportunity, through amendment to the Bill, to abandon the other research, the provisions on which will, I fear, be agreed tonight. The Government will, at a later stage, give a free vote on certain aspects of the Bill, but I am afraid that that will not be sufficient to defeat the proposals. On the issue of resources, let me point out one of the things that really trouble me about all the research. This world is full of misery, poverty and death. My campaign for water and sanitation, backed by 250 Members; the fact that a child dies every 15 seconds from water-related diseases; the misery that we observe in Burma—all those things are demands on our finances, and I do not believe that the research that we are discussing will produce results that will be generally available to all people. I end by quoting from the Nuremberg principles, which make a case for themselves:"““The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.””" That principle, decided on in 1947, should stand good today.